You make an interesting comparison to the O.J. case.

In the O.J. Simpson trial, at least, you could rationalize that racial factors had colored jurors' judgment. In the Anthony trial, there were no such complicating factors.

Could the fact that the defendant was a young white woman have had anything to do with it? Would the jury have decided the same if the defendant had been a man, or black, or both? Think about it. Would Kevin Anthony have been acquitted of everything except lying to the police?

There are always complicating factors. Race can be one of them. Sex can be another. Remember this was a capital case. According to http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/women-and-death-penalty,

"* women account for about 1 in 10 (10%) murder arrests;
* women account for only 1 in 50 (2%) death sentences imposed at the trial level;
* women account for only 1 in 67 (1.5%) persons presently on death row; and
* women account for only 1 in 100 (1%) persons actually executed in the modern era."

And we all know about the racial disparity as far as the death penalty is concerned.

TVD, you say all evidence pointed to Anthony's murder guilt. But the TV audience doesn't get a vote. A properly constituted jury in a fair trial found reasonable doubt. That's the way our justice system works, and the way you'd want it to work if you were on trial. Have you got a better alternative?

Ted, you are free to disagree with the verdict. But where is the "fundamental violation of fair play?" The trial was conducted according to the same rules of evidence as any other trial. The actual evidence of guilt was slight, particularly in a death penalty case. The state's own forensic expert failed to support the state's theory of the case and was treated as if he was a hostile witness by the prosecutor. The state failed to persuade even a single juror of guilt on any major charge. If every single juror was of the opinion that Casey Anthony killed her child but the state failed to prove its case then justice was done according to the law of this nation. If you prefer kangaroo courts where people are convicted by popular opinion rather than due process that's fine; just stop wrapping yourself in the flag and yammering about decency.

You conflate your dislike of the defendant with a jumble of unrelated complaints. Your prediction of lawsuits against the defense attorney shows you have absolutely no legal education. And where have you been while Nancy Grace and cable news did everything possible to pollute the jury pool for entertainment?

I used to think that Horse's Ass was too harsh in its treatment of you. I was wrong.

Thanks for the early commments. Lukoff makes a good point about gender and race.
The other early comments appear directed at some straw man or offered as argument for its own sake.

Of course the trial was conducted according to the rules of the game. So are many trials which result in outrageous, mistaken outcomes. When this happens, we need not congratulate ourselves on the end product. We've had a long struggle in this country to assure that the law and justice sometimes correlate.

Anyone who observed the trial had to have been surprised by the carelessness of jury selection and the lazy conduct of a couple of the jurors in particular. I have no personal "dislike" for the defendant. Her conduct in many ways was reprehensible. That in itself did not make her a murderess. But the evidence---and her lies to avoid the evidence---led me to conclude she was guilty. And I was offended by the often irresponsible allegations and insinuations launched by the defense which obviously were intended to confuse jurors. Who wants kangaroo courts or legal decisions based on popular opinion? I would imagine we all would want serious proceedings, undertaken seriously, which result in justice.

I am the father of four and grandfather of six. I would be surprised if many parents and grandparents who followed this trial are disposed to accept this verdict passively.

You seem to misunderstand the legal system when you say the defense attorney "rallied slightly with a tighter closing presentation — one still lacking any effective rebuttal to the state's case."

The defense doesn't need to rebut the state's case, only to create sufficient doubt. The defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. That's the whole basis of criminal law in this country. I can't believe you don't get this.

DannyK says it best:

Create some doubt.... If you can accuse everybody in the phone book of possibly having a motive, then you get set free. Her lawyer did a great job creating doubt and confusion.Perhaps we are seeing the next F. Lee Bailey in action.

DannyK: According to the letter of the law, the defense did not of course have to "rebut" the state's case. As a practical matter, though, by the time of the defense's closing presentation, the weight of the state's case seemed overwhelming and it would seem to have behooved the defense to take on the prosecution's principal points. And, yes, believe it or not, I do understand that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. I have known that since about the 3d grade.

The moment called for the defense to come up stronger and in greater specificity at the end. To the defendant's good fortune, the jury came in
with the verdict she wanted.

Now, a word about tone in the comment stream. The verdict yesterday was one which jolted most people in the country. Those who questioned it are not necessarily stupid or ignorant of the law. Perhaps they looked beyond procedure to their desire that larger justice be served. A couple of the comments, above, would appear to reveal their authors as angry, hostile,
disputatious people who probably think they know more than they do. A
little thoughtfulness, please, and understanding that views contrary to your own might have some basis behind them.

TVD, you're really stepped out of line in lecturing the commenters here. I could have used much stronger language in commenting on your obtuse article, and I suspect some of the other commenters could have too. We exercised restraint, in line with the uncommonly civil tone of Crosscut's comments for an online setting. People who write for publication need to be open to comments and criticism. Readers can teach writers a lot. But you do not seem to have that capacity to be receptive and learn. You've been caught more than a few times in flat-out inaccuracies that were serious, and even in that situation you never acknowledged you were wrong. Do not lecture us. You haven't earned that right.

To Harris Meyer: I normally would not respond to a comment such as that above. Over a period of several years, you have promptly posted shrill, often personal comments after anything I have written. You come from a certain ideological viewpoint and seem unable to view anything except from that viewpoint. What I think of as blogger disease.

I have written for Crosscut for more than three years. Before that, I wrote a P-I column for some seven years. Over a 40-year period, while not pursuing journalism as an occupation, I nonetheless wrote hundreds of essays for The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, LA Times, Washington Post, and other national publications. I published a memoir dealing with a long period of political history. You would be hard pressed to find many inaccuracies in that production, including the recent-year pieces for Crosscut. As I have read your comments, you seem to regard "inaccuracies" as anything not in agreement with you particular view or the "facts" as expressed typically in moveon.org or similar sources.

I take great care to respond to commenters, probably more than anyone who contributes to Crosscut. Some writers simply choose to ignore comments.
I try to treat readers with respect and, thus, am pleased to have exchanges
which are offered seriously.

You say that I seem unable to learn. I have spent many years learning a great deal about foreign, domestic and economic policy, and about the processes of government and politics. I continue to learn by reading widely from many sources and from talking with those currently active in the process. What I have learned about journalism is that, in recent years, it has been polluted by contributors with minimal regard for traditional standards of fairness and objectivity. I do not accept that.

I will continue to express honest opinion, based on my own knowledge and available information, and let the chips fall. I have done that in the jobs I have held. I have done that in what I write. Some will agree, others will disagree. That is the approach I took with this piece on the Anthony verdict and which I will continue to take on any subject on which I write. No lecture. A statement of personal policy.

Another statement of policy: I will simply ignore comments from those who
appear to be using them as therapy or to vent some personal hostility.

The "my father molested me" defense wins again.

Here are two flat-out serious inaccuracies I recall, and I remember other people calling you out on other inaccuracies over the last couple years. You recently stated that Leon Panetta had been a Republican congressman, which he never was. And you stated that the Democrats would have to pass other laws after the health care reform law to fund and implement that law, which was inaccurate. Those are not my opinions, those are facts on which you were wrong. You often refer to any comment posts which catch you in errors or misleading statements, and back up the critique with evidence, as "shrill" or "angry." In this comment thread, for instance, you don't seem to understand the basic U.S. justice system fact that defense attorneys don't have to rebut the state's case, only to raise reasonable doubt. That seemed to set you off on your diatribe. Some of us felt we needed to set the record straight on how the justice system works. If you feel that's "angry, hostile, and disputatious," that illustrates the chronic problem with your response to civil comments, criticisms, and corrections. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Casey ruined many lives along with getting away with murder. I too felt very saddened by this result...it has to do with lack of fairness and obvious indifference to truth, as well as the death of a vulnerable child. I believe you are right about the many things in society that cause us grief, that if we take them individually are bad enough, but when we look collectively at them, they are overwhelming and disheartening.

The prosecution gambled on a complex, multi-front case, where most prosecutors would have passed or struck a deal. They shouldn’t be surprised that a jury rejected a case that couldn’t meet the incredibly high standard that we insist on…beyond a reasonable doubt.
In my mind, a critical moment in the case was when the prosecutor was visibly laughing during the defense attorney’s closing argument, and got called out for it. That was a rookie, stupid, unforgiveable blunder that could have (and probably did) changed the course of the trial.
Jurors who are trying hard to do the right thing don’t tolerate mockery and derision very well.

Well said. The whole thing disgusts me and also makes me think of our decline as a society. Having just served on a jury, I was alarmed by my fellow jurors' inability to understand circumstantial evidence. Some people just seem to think that if you don't have it on videotape, it didn't happen.

Dear Mr. Van Dyk,
The other side of the coin is summed up here:

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2011/03/us_supreme_court_rejects_14_mi.html

When it appears that the prosecution can and does withhold evidence, make up evidence (See LA cops planting guns & drugs on youth) it becomes almost impossible for people this far away from the crime scene to know the truth.

It's pretty clear that Casey Anthony is not an ideal parent. However the state has to prove it's case. The prosecuting attorneys have the right to reject jurors same as the defendants attorney does. If the mix of jurors was not to your liking, oh well.

We trust those jurors to weigh the evidence and do the right thing. Since they are human sometimes it goes awry and they don't appear to understand all the information that we outsiders have, or they aren't presented it due to the rules of evidence.

It is sad when a child is murdered. But what you are calling for is mob rule. "We know she's guilty, hang her!" But what do we really know? Was there in fact a dead person smell in the trunk? What is the actual link of the mother to the crime? In a civil suit we can say, well "I have a better than 50% belief in that she did it." That's the standard that the Goldmarks sued OJ on and won. Here though we are in a criminal case and we need better than 50% we need 100%. And given the quick turn around by the jury, it's obvious the prosecution failed to make that case.

Sorry if you are offended by this process but AFAIK, it's the best one out there.

Lyndon Johnson's Justice Department would never have permitted this miscarriage of justice.

I'm no Ted Van Dyk fan, but his critics are way out of line on this one. Our justice system allows for people who are guilty to be acquitted if the evidence against them is inadequate, which is exactly what happened in the cast of Ms. Anthony. However, when this happens, people can still talk smack about the defendant and her counsel and even our entire legal system if they feel like it. That's what we call freedom of speech.

Casey Anthony was not found "innocent." The evidence shows that her daughter died while under Casey's supervision, that she hid the crime, that she lied to friends, family, and the legal authorities about her daughter's disappearance, and that Casey greatly enjoyed no longer being a parent and shifted to being a full-time party girl. Frankly, she's a lousy person and I wish her a lousy life.

Mannix, what you say is perfectly cool with me (totally in line with the excellent Boston Herald column Crosscut linked to this morning). But what you aren't doing is what TVD did, denouncing the U.S. justice system because a trial produced an outcome you disagree with, tying that outcome to myriad other things you see as societial dysfunctions, then telling those who disagree with you that they shouldn't be criticizing and commenting on your posted opinion. Freedom is speech requires broad tolerance for disagreement, stated in whatever form (preferably civil but not constitutionally required to be so), and that's what TVD seems to lack.

Not much to add here; these comments seem to cover the map, but it is -though understandable - disturbing to see so many, TVD included, engage in massive second-guessing of the jurors in this case. They were in court every day, listening to the evidence - as most of the TV talking heads who pronounced "obvious" guilt were not - and seemed, if you listened to their post-trial comments, anguished about the verdict they rendered but also convinced that the state didn't make a case that reached beyond reasonable doubt. There's no reason to ridicule them, or trash them - Nancy Grace is the leading champion of that approach - they clearly did their best, and listened to the evidence as presented, not to an "expert" on TV.
TVD has decided, a long way from Florida, that Ms. Anthony is guilty. That's his right, as a columnist, but his opinion is not the one we should care about. The jury gets the say in our system - end of story. I do wonder if some of those outraged - Ms. Grace in particular - wouldn't prefer a system where all trials are on TV and the verdict is put to a phone-in vote, following remarks - of course - from an array of TV "pundits." Doubt it, but at least they couldn't whine afterwards.

On the 100th anniversary of his birth, Hubert Humphrey is rolling over in his grave at the Casey Anthony verdict.

I have read the writer's work for years from multiple sources. Although I have sometimes disagreed with his comments, I have never seen a missive as intemperate and misguided as this before.

I paid very little attention to this case until the last few days. Let's face it, it was a local, minor case. The Scots have a concept that is applicable here: not proven. In our system "not guilty" is essentially a term of art. The criminal standard of judgment is far more stringent than that of a civil or equity case.

It might behoove people to read Alan Dershowitz's comments, since ties have been made to the Simpson case. In the latter, there was strong physical evidence that was tainted by state misconduct. In this case there was scant physical evidence, likely because of the defendant's conduct. Distinctions must be made between legal guilt and moral guilt.

Get over it folks. The system worked

In watching the reaction on the mass media, the general consensus is similar to Ted Van Dyk's in that something must be wrong with the justice system because they didn't receive the outcome that they wanted--in this case a conviction.

I wonder why there is not the same level of outrage when the justice system does give the outcome that the victim and their families wanted but is later proved wrong. In my view it is a greater outrage to send an innocent person to prison than to to find an "obviously guilty" person "Not Guilty".

Here is the list of individuals exonerated by The Innocence Project since 2000 through DNA testing:

Name / State / Conviction Year / Exoneration Year
Derreck Williams FL 1993 2011
Johnn Pinchback TX 1984 2011
Cornelius Dupree TX 1980 2011
Calvin Cunningham VA 1981 2011
John Kenneth Watkins AZ 2004 2010
Raymond Towler OH 1981 2010
Frank Sterling NY 1992 2010
Larry Ruffin MS 1980 2010
Freddie Peacock NY 1976 2010
Maurice Patterson IL 2003 2010
Douglas Pacyon NY 1985 2010
Alan G. Northrop WA 1993 2010
Curtis Moore VA 1978 2010
Anthony Johnson LA 1986 2010
Michael Green TX 1983 2010
Bobby Ray Dixon MS 1980 2010
Larry W. Davis WA 1993 2010
Anthony Caravella FL 1986 2010
Patrick Brown PA 2002 2010
Ted Bradford WA 1996 2010
Phillip Bivens MS 1980 2010
William D. Avery WI 2004 2010
James Lee Woodard TX 1981 2009
Thomas Winslow NE 1990 2009
Ada JoAnn Taylor NE 1990 2009
Robert Lee Stinson WI 1985 2009
Debra Shelden NE 1989 2009
Miquel Roman CT 1990 2009
Ricardo Rachell TX 2003 2009
Chaunte Ott WI 1996 2009
Lawrence McKinney TN 1978 2009
Michael Marshall GA 2008 2009
Johnnie Lindsey TX 1981, 1985 2009
Kenneth Ireland CT 1989 2009
Kathy Gonzalez NE 1990 2009
Larry Gillard IL 1982 2009
Donald Eugene Gates DC 1982 2009
Joseph Fears Jr. OH 1984 2009
Jerry Lee Evans TX 1987 2009
James Dean NE 1990 2009
Timothy Cole TX 1986 2009
Victor Burnette VA 1979 2009
Steven Barnes NY 1989 2009
James Bain FL 1974 2009
Joseph Abbitt NC 1995 2009
Joseph White NE 1989 2008
Patrick Waller TX 1992 2008
Ronald Taylor TX 1995 2008
Steven Phillips TX 1982, 1983 2008
Thomas McGowan TX 1985/1986 2008
Robert McClendon OH 1991 2008
Arthur Johnson MS 1993 2008
Rickie Johnson LA 1983 2008
Nathaniel Hatchett MI 1998 2008
William Dillon FL 1981 2008
Charles Chatman TX 1981 2008
Dean Cage IL 1996 2008
Kennedy Brewer MS 1995 2008
Michael Blair TX 1994 2008
Willie Williams GA 1985 2007
John Jerome White GA 1980 2007
Gregory Wallis TX 1989 2007
James Waller TX 1983 2007
Jerry Miller IL 1982 2007
Curtis McCarty OK 1986, 1989 2007
Marcus Lyons IL 1988 2007
Chad Heins FL 1996 2007
Travis Hayes LA 1998 2007
Byron Halsey NJ 1988 2007
Andrew Gossett TX 2000 2007
James Curtis Giles TX 1983 2007
Larry Fuller TX 1981 2007
Cody Davis FL 2006 2007
Dwayne Allen Dail NC 1989 2007
Anthony Capozzi NY 1987 2007
Roy Brown NY 1992 2007
Larry Bostic FL 1989 2007
Antonio Beaver MO 1997 2007
Drew Whitley PA 1989 2006
Douglas Warney NY 1997 2006
James Tillman CT 1989 2006
Billy James Smith TX 1987 2006
Larry Peterson NJ 1989 2006
Marlon Pendleton IL 1996 2006
James Ochoa CA 2005 2006
Alan Newton NY 1985 2006
Arthur Mumphrey TX 1986 2006
Billy Wayne Miller TX 1984 2006
Willie Jackson LA 1989 2006
Eugene Henton TX 1984 2006
Scott Fappiano NY 1985 2006
Jeff Deskovic NY 1990 2006
Alan Crotzer FL 1981 2006
Allen Coco LA 1997 2006
Johnny Briscoe MO 1983 2006
Orlando Boquete FL 1983 2006
Anthony D. Woods MO 1984 2005
Michael Anthony WilliamsLA 1981 2005
Keith E. Turner TX 1983 2005
Phillip Leon Thurman VA 1985 2005
Peter Rose CA 1996 2005
George Rodriguez TX 1987 2005
John Restivo NY 1987 2005
Brandon Moon TX 1988 2005
John Kogut NY 1986 2005
Entre Nax Karage TX 1997 2005
Dennis Halstead NY 1987 2005
Clarence Elkins OH 1999 2005
Thomas Doswell PA 1986 2005
Luis Diaz FL 1980 2005
Willie Davidson VA 1981 2005
Robert Clark GA 1982 2005
Harold Buntin IN 1986 2005
Dennis Brown LA 1985 2005
Donte Booker OH 1987 2005
Arthur Lee Whitfield VA 1982 2004
Josiah Sutton TX 1999 2004
Lafonso Rollins IL 1994 2004
Anthony Powell MA 1992 2004
Ryan Matthews LA 1999 2004
Barry Laughman PA 1988 2004
David Allen Jones CA 1995 2004
Darryl Hunt NC 1985 2004
Clarence Harrison GA 1987 2004
Bruce Dallas Goodman UT 1986 2004
Donald Wayne Good TX 1984 2004
Wilton Dedge FL 1982 2004
Stephan Cowans MA 1998 2004
Nicholas Yarris PA 1982 2003
Kenneth Wyniemko MI 1994 2003
Calvin Willis LA 1982 2003
Leo Waters NC 1982 2003
Paul Terry IL 1977 2003
Calvin Lee Scott OK 1983 2003
Julius Ruffin VA 1982 2003
Michael Mercer NY 1992 2003
Dennis Maher MA 1984 2003
Eddie James Lowery KS 1982 2003
Paul D. Kordonowy MT 1990 2003
Dana Holland IL 1993 2003
Wiley Fountain TX 1986 2003
Michael Evans IL 1977 2003
Lonnie Erby MO 1986 2003
Davide Johns Bryson OK 1983 2003
Gene Bibbins LA 1987 2003
Steven Avery WI 1985 2003
Korey Wise NY 1990 2002
Bernard Webster MD 1983 2002
Mark Webb TX 1987 2002
Victor Thomas TX 1986 2002
David Brian Sutherlin MN 1985 2002
Samuel Scott GA 1987 2002
Raymond Santana NY 1990 2002
Yusef Salaam NY 1990 2002
Kevin Richardson NY 1990 2002
Christopher Ochoa TX 1989 2002
Clark McMillan TN 1980 2002
Arvin McGee OK 1989 2002
Antron McCray NY 1990 2002
Eddie Joe Lloyd MI 1985 2002
Ray Krone AZ 1992 2002
Larry Johnson MO 1984 2002
Albert Johnson CA 1992 2002
Paula Gray IL 1978 2002
Hector Gonzalez NY 1996 2002
Bruce Godschalk PA 1987 2002
Douglas Echols GA 1987 2002
Alejandro Dominguez IL 1990 2002
Richard Danziger TX 1990 2002
Jimmy Ray Bromgard MT 1987 2002
Marvin Anderson VA 1982 2002
Kenny Waters MA 1983 2001
Calvin Washington TX 1987 2001
Eduardo Velasquez MA 1988 2001
Jerry Frank Townsend FL Various 2001
Omar Saunders IL 1988 2001
David Shawn Pope TX 1986 2001
Jeffrey Pierce OK 1986 2001
Calvin Ollins IL 1988 2001
Larry Ollins IL 1988 2001
Leonard McSherry CA 1988 2001
Larry Mayes IN 1982 2001
Lesly Jean NC 1982 2001
Michael Green OH 1988 2001
Charles Fain ID 1983 2001
John Dixon NJ 1991 2001
Ulysses Rodriguez Charles MA 1984 2001
Danny Brown Danny OH 1982 2001
Marcellius Bradford IL 1988 2001
Richard Alexander IN 1998 2001
Larry Youngblood AZ 1985 2000
Jerry Watkins IN 1986 2000
Earl Washington VA 1984 2000
Armand Villasana MO 1999 2000
Frank Lee Smith FL 1986 2000
Eric Sarsfield MA 1987 2000
Anthony Robinson TX 1987 2000
James O’Donnell NY 1998 2000
Willie Nesmith PA 1982 2000
Neil Miller MA 1990 2000
Carlos Lavernia TX 1985 2000
Larry Holdren WV 1985 2000
William Gregory KY 1993 2000
Roy Criner TX 1990 2000
A.B. Butler TX 1983 2000
Herman Atkins CA 1988 2000

While Van Dyk is entitled to his sense of indignation, perhaps we should consider the indignation that felt for all those listed above as their brother/father/uncle/cousin/lover/son was "fairly" convicted in a court of law and sent off to prison.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/

...
Jimmy Ray Bromgard MT 1987 2002
Marvin Anderson VA 1982 2002
Kenny Waters MA 1983 2001
Calvin Washington TX 1987 2001
Eduardo Velasquez MA 1988 2001
Jerry Frank Townsend FL Various 2001
Omar Saunders IL 1988 2001
David Shawn Pope TX 1986 2001
Jeffrey Pierce OK 1986 2001
Calvin Ollins IL 1988 2001
Larry Ollins IL 1988 2001
Leonard McSherry CA 1988 2001
Larry Mayes IN 1982 2001
Lesly Jean NC 1982 2001
Michael Green OH 1988 2001
Charles Fain ID 1983 2001
John Dixon NJ 1991 2001
Ulysses Rodriguez Charles MA 1984 2001
Danny Brown Danny OH 1982 2001
Marcellius Bradford IL 1988 2001
Richard Alexander IN 1998 2001
Larry Youngblood AZ 1985 2000
Jerry Watkins IN 1986 2000
Earl Washington VA 1984 2000
Armand Villasana MO 1999 2000
Frank Lee Smith FL 1986 2000
Eric Sarsfield MA 1987 2000
Anthony Robinson TX 1987 2000
James O’Donnell NY 1998 2000
Willie Nesmith PA 1982 2000
Neil Miller MA 1990 2000
Carlos Lavernia TX 1985 2000
Larry Holdren WV 1985 2000
William Gregory KY 1993 2000
Roy Criner TX 1990 2000
A.B. Butler TX 1983 2000
Herman Atkins CA 1988 2000

While Van Dyk is entitled to his sense of indignation, perhaps we should consider the indignation that felt for all those listed above as their brother/father/uncle/cousin/lover/son was "fairly" convicted in a court of law and sent off to prison.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/

Here's a link to an article by a journalist who was actually much closer to the actual evidence than our favorite punching bag, Mr. Van Dyk.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-lohr/caylee-anthony-case-i-was_b_892787.html#s300027&title;=Caylee_Marie_Anthony

"As Casey came around the corner [of the pool] she saw George Anthony holding Caylee in his arms," the defense attorney told the jury. "She immediately grabbed Caylee and began to cry. Shortly thereafter, George began to yell at her: 'Look what you've done. Your mother will never forgive you and you will go to jail for child neglect for the rest of your frigging life.'"

This was the defense: That she didn't kill her daughter merely covered up her death. Without any other evidence that was it. And kids do drown in home pools all the time.

Given that she was negligent in watching her kid and got a manslaughter charge, 4 years in jail would not have been out of the range of sentencing and that's what she served.

In the end, it's sad that a kid died. Whether by the direct hand of her mother or not we'll never know but clearly the prosecution didn't have anything more than this and for the jury to convict on a Murder 1 charge would be difficult as much as we all want revenge for a wrongful death.

Oh and Mr. Van Dyk, if you want to write where readers can post criticism, you need thicker skin. Have a good weekend and let it go, there was nothing you could have done to change the outcome of this tragedy.

Thanks for the advice, Gary P. Normally my skin is thick. I was angry in this instance because the subject matter was serious and somber and it was irritating to see smart-assed, gotcha comments offered on such a matter. I am still depressed by the story itself. The latest: Casey's mother came to visit her in jail this (Friday) a.m. but Casey refused to see her. This after her mother had perjured herself (re the chloroform internet search) in the witness box to try to help her daughter. The jurors' identities will be released in a few days---about the time Casey will be released from jail--and media will descend on them. Much more information on the case no doubt will surface, from many sources, before the next sensation supplants it. But it is likely to stick in public memory for a long time. A good weekend to you as well.

Until the criminal trial system is altered, your acceptance or non-acceptance of the jury's verdict doesn't matter, TVD. There are three different issues here: the decision of a legally-impanelled jury, someone's personal feelings as a parent toward the defendant, and how the media treat these cases. Those issues aren't logically related.

TVD, for people to point out that you don't seem to understand or were ignoring the basic nature of the U.S. justice system -- that the work of a jury is to determine whether the state proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, that only a jury, not a TV audience, can make that decision, that this properly constituted jury in a fair trial reached a decision you don't agree with, and that your opinion isn't necessarily God's truth -- is hardly "smart-assed, gotcha" commentary. You have been prickly about criticism nearly every time you have written a Crosscut article and people have posted critical comments, which is nearly every time. The comments you received on your Casey Anthony piece were serious, thoughtful, and civil. If you can't take this, you should consider keeping a diary rather than writing in a public forum.

I have sat on juries, and the fact that twelve people agreed unanimously on "not guilty" is quite impressive - getting twelve random people to agree on _anything_ is nigh impossible. The jury could easily have hung if even one single person wasn't sold on the "not guilty" verdict, and they did not hang. Do not underestimate the significance of this.

Remember the verdict in our system is only "not guilty." She was not found "innocent"; she was found "not guilty." It's not actually the same thing.

A couple of the jurors have been interviewed since the verdict came out (at least Nos. 2 and 3), and they are saying the same things more or less, namely, that the prosecution had a weak case, first and foremost because the prosecution lacked ANY direct evidence. The jurors also said that the charges brought played a role: had the prosecution gone with manslaughter, a guilty verdict would have been more likely, but their murder charges (and the potential for the death penalty) dissuaded the jury from finding the defendant guilty because they could not be certain enough about the case based on the credible evidence there was to send a woman to her death.

Having sat on a jury before myself, I would also have been reluctant to send someone to her death without ANY direct evidence, as well. The jurors also admitted that they had suspicions about what happened, but the prosecution just didn't give them enough to tip them past a reasonable doubt and to convict.

The verdict in this case is disappointing since most everyone can agree that something sinister probably happened. But the jury's verdict seems to be the legally correct one based on what the prosecution was able to present.

Heartscribe, there are a lot of things that would be more likely to make Hubert Humphrey roll over in his grave for than the outcome of this trial. The attempted (and probably successful) dismantling of the social services system in this country, for instance.

The main problem with the criminal justice system in this country is that in high-profile cases (Simpson and Anthony, for two) which get a lot of publicity before they go to trial, defense attorneys are either paid quite a bit (Simpson) or do it for the notoriety (Anthony). The prosecutors, on the other hand, get only their salaries, and the whole court system is badly understaffed due to financial problems. And the prosecutors are the ones under pressure: they have to prove the defendant was guilty. The defense doesn't have to prove innocence; all they have to do is poke enough circumstantial holes in the prosecution's case.

TBD, you were definitely ranting and it doesn't matter a bit how much experience you have in x, y, or z. You weren't on the jury. Period. As smacgry says, the jury's verdict was likely legally correct: they weren't convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt she was guilty.

If you want to change the system, write another article telling us how you'd do so.

BTW, the NYTimes did an editorial on the case.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/10/opinion/sunday/10bruni.html?partner=rssnyt&emc;=rss

It's much more balanced than the piece by Mr. Van Dyk. Yet makes the same conclusion, justice wasn't served.

I watched a TV interview with a very intelligent, thoughtful and well-spoken juror. It clearly pained her to reach the decision she did, but she couldn't in good conscience convict based on the evidence (or lack thereof).

Writing off 12 citizens as a bunch of unfeeling idiots who don't care about justice is facile but both unfair and inaccurate. The fact they unanimously reached this verdict in such a short time speaks volumes about the case as it was presented.

Is this like the Scotland courts which, as I understand it, allow the jury to rule "not proven"?

Kilgoretrout, I don't know about the Scottish courts, but the US criminal justice system requires that someone be adjudged guilty by a jury "beyond a shadow of a doubt." A defendant's either guilty or innocent (on the specific count or counts the defendant's charged with). There's no middle ground. If the defendant's found innocent of a particular count, that means in itself that guilt wasn't proven by the prosecution regarding that count.